iCyclone Typhoon Chasing Expedition - Fall 2013

[Eskimo Joe]

Josh you have certainly had a unique experience...one that I am quite envious of.  But I couldn't help but laugh a bit when you were quoted in the CBS interview as saying "weather is serious business."  Nice stuff.

[Ian]

Data! http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/11/13/chaser-team-documents-abrupt-violent-onset-of-destructive-typhoon-in-tacloban/

[mappy]

[AgeeWx]

Anybody else surprised by what they found? I know they weren't in the eye, but what does that mean for minimum central pressure based upon their data, proximity to the landfalling location, and other data gathered?

[PSUBlizzicane2007]

Anybody else surprised by what they found? I know they weren't in the eye, but what does that mean for minimum central pressure based upon their data, proximity to the landfalling location, and other data gathered?

 

The minimum central pressure in the eye can be extrapolated based on the given data.  An extreme pressure gradient would not be surprising based on the wind speed and wind gradient of the system.

[Amped]

 

 

Okay so the pressure where Josh was was 960mb. An 65 mb pressure drop in 15 miles,  I can see happening if the eye was Wilma size, but it wasn't.  The pressure gradient inside the eye shouldn't be very strong, the eye-wall should be where all the drop occurs.

 

It Only looks like there  3-4 miles of eye-wall between Josh and the inner eye!  At least this is assuming the pressure levels off where the bright colors end.  If it's closer to where the blue ends, then there was 6-7 miles for the pressure to tank..

 

Either way, the central pressure may have been much higher than expected.  However, it could still have been close to Andrew, however, a latitude adjustment for the lower latitude and inertial adjustment for the large eye, may have meant  stronger winds speeds than Andrew.   

[NaoPos]

I fear we'll probably never know the deepest pressure either at landfall or just prior.

[rgwp96]

Josh, seen your interview on CBS this morning.  It was a good interview, glad you and the rest of the group are OK.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50158963n

great interview josh

[thewxmann]

I fear we'll probably never know the deepest pressure either at landfall or just prior.

 

There's probably a way to extrapolate from the pressure data we do have.

 

It won't be close to exact, but it'll provide a rough estimate (and will probably diagnose whether Haiyan was closer to 910 vs. 870 mb at landfall).

[patrick05]

just for added info, if you look at the radar image of Tacloban posted above, you'll see two pins, one for Tacloban, and one for Dulag.. those weather stations by PAGASA; we'll have to assume they were calibrated to a degree.. anyway, Tacloban was reporting pressure right up to landfall... Dulag meanwhile, stopped reporting one hour before landfall... here are their pressure data:

 

Time (local) - Tacloban - Dulag

5am            - 989.4    - 988.3

5:15am       -  987.8   -  986.2

5:30am       - 986.0    - 983.5

6am           -   980.0    -  976.1

6:15am       -   977.1   -   969.1

6:30am      -   972.69    -   no data

6:45am      -    965.6

7:00am      -   957.4

7:15am      -    955.6

 

Josh's measurements somewhat close... i'm no met, but i'm guessing the landfall intensity in Leyte was probably around 930-ish...??

[tmagan]

I wonder exactly where all the American reporters in Tacloban are staying right now?

[ncforecaster89]

In 1992 when hurricane Andrew crossed southern Dade county, Florida the difference in pressure between Bauer Drive in Homestead (922 mb) and several verified barometer readings in south Miami was 60-65 millibars (from 982 to 988 mb). This occurred over a 15 n mi distance....a pressure gradient of 4-5 mb per mile. That isn't uncommon in severe tropical cyclones. In fact, the gradient in the small but extremely violent 1935 Labor Day hurricane was reportedly 7-8 mb per mile.

Josh and his team measured 960 mb in the north eyewall 15 n mi from the center of the eye at landfall, so IMO there's reasonable certainty the central pressure was at or below 900 mb. I've also seen the unconfirmed reports of 889 mb from Manicani Island south of Guiuan. This island was near the center of Haiyan's eye.....so wouldn't doubt a pressure that low. In four decades of research into historical hurricanes/ tropical cyclones, Haiyan's satellite presentation at landfall was among the most impressive I've ever seen.

Although I understand the parallel you are trying to make between the two storms, there are some very important distinctions that need to be considered, when doing so.

First, the eye of Andrew was smaller and more compact than Haiyan's, when the latter made landfall S of Tacloban City.

Secondly, the distance between the 922 mb pressure measured in Andrew and the northern-most portion of the eyewall was only 11 nm. This is quite significant because the 982 mb pressure you are referencing was recorded at the NHC, which was 15 nm from the centroid of the eye, and a full 4 nm OUTSIDE the eyewall.

In addition, hurricane Andrew was rapidly intensifying as it was coming ashore just E of Homestead. In contrast, both the radar and satellite presentations of Haiyan, while still impressive, had deteriorated somewhat between the initial landfall near Guiuan, and it's subsequent landfall just S of Palo. This was not surprising since the northern eyewall, that would ultimately move into Tacloban, had been encountering friction (as it scraped along the southern coast of Samar) during the entire two hours that elapsed between the two respective landfalls.

With the aforementioned in mind, there's very little doubt that Haiyan didn't have as steep a pressure gradient, at closest approach to Tacloban, as the one observed in hurricane Andrew-when it struck the SE coast of Fl. Based on all the available data collected to date, it seems far more plausible that Typhoon Haiyan moved ashore into the Lyete peninsula with a lowest barometric pressure in the general vicinity of 930 mb, and likely at category four intensity. I suspect that the satellite estimates over-exaggerated the peak intensity of Haiyan, when it made its initial landfall near Guiuan. That being said, it is highly probable that it was still a very intense category five TC (with a lowest minimum central pressure in the 910 mb range) when it made landfall in eastern Samar.

[HurricaneJosh]

Both the JMA and JTWC had Haiyan well into Cat-5 intensity after the Leyte landfall just S of us.  When those two agencies agree, I feel comfortable with their blended assessment.

 

This aside, Tony, I saw the other day that you compared the winds we experienced in Tacloban to your winds in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, during Katrina. This comparison seems odd to me, since Katrina was a big, loose, rapidly decaying Cat 1 with winds of 80 kt as it passed near Hattiesburg (at 18Z), while Haiyan was an extremely intense typhoon as it passed near us, with both agency estimates putting the intensity well into Cat 5. Whether winds in the city were Cat 5 or high-end Cat 4, the fact remains that the city experienced extremely severe conditions. There really is no meaningful comparison here.

[Roger Smith]

Josh, glad you and the other chasers are safe, and bravo on the rescues.

 

Have just posted some new videos (new to this discussion) that I found on line, in the other thread, from northern Leyte on west coast at San Ysidro and northern tip (Biliran Island). The San Ysidro video looks cat-4 to me, roughly similar to Charley from what I recall of that. Given the reports from Palo and Tanauan, and the Jim Edds (?) video shot as he took refuge in a swimming pool seen on CNN the other day, would have to think the eastern Leyte landfall was cat-5 (4/5 at least) and I drew up a map which looks reasonably similar in gradient to landfalling US storms that suggested 915 mb at this landfall which seems consistent with the 899 mb report yet to be confirmed from Guiuan. This 915 mb estimate might actually refer to pre-landfall due south of your position, perhaps it then filled a little to around 930 mb across Leyte but from reports of severe damage in the Visayan Sea islands I feel that perhaps it then deepened again to around 920, possibly filling back to 940 crossing Panay and maintaining that across northern Palawan (Coron) where damage reports sounded about cat-3 intensity but satellite still suggested possible cat-4.

 

The track managed to avoid a lot of major weather stations (e.g., Roxas in north Panay) by just enough distance that we may never know these details for certain, but I guess the wind damage and storm surge records will help fill in the blanks. As for the minimum pressure before first landfall, that remains highly speculative. Somewhat against the flow of media reports, I would have to say this was on a par with Tip and the 1961 storms, as to the idea that older estimates are flawed, that may be another case of climate change politics intruding. As terrible as this storm has been, I don't really see strong evidence that it was "off the scale" and in human lives lost, it was nowhere near as bad as Bangladesh 1970 and so far verified numbers are short of Galveston 1900 for that matter (although this appears to have been a more intense storm than that).

[Amped]

Both the JMA and JTWC had Haiyan well into Cat-5 intensity after the Leyte landfall just S of us.  When those two agencies agree, I feel comfortable with their blended assessment.

 

This aside, Tony, I saw the other day that you compared the winds we experienced in Tacloban to your winds in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, during Katrina. This comparison seems odd to me, since Katrina was a big, loose, rapidly decaying Cat 1 with winds of 80 kt as it passed near Hattiesburg (at 18Z), while Haiyan was an extremely intense typhoon as it passed near us, with both agency estimates putting the intensity well into Cat 5. Whether winds in the city were Cat 5 or high-end Cat 4, the fact remains that the city experienced extremely severe conditions. There really is no meaningful comparison here.

 

Some storms cause mostly wind damage, and some storms cause mostly surge damage. Like Katrina in Mississippi, it is almost impossible to tell what was caused by wind and what was caused by water with this one.

[HurricaneJosh]

Some storms cause mostly wind damage, and some storms cause mostly surge damage. Like Katrina in Mississippi, it is almost impossible to tell what was caused by wind and what was caused by water with this one.

 

Perhaps-- but the comparisons with Katrina really end there.  Haiyan was an extremely-severe, deep-tropical cyclone with an intense core when it hit the Philippines; Katrina was a rapidly broadening, decaying cyclone as it hit LA and MS at a high latitude.

 

Re: damage.... The surge was devastating, but wind damage in the city was also severe.  The trees in particular looked like they'd been through a tornado-- just sticks left-- no leaves, etc.  And that was in the city.

[HurricaneJosh]

By the way, I haven't adequately thanked everyone who wrote nice things in this thread (above) or on social media.  The amount of exposure and feedback I've gotten on this chase has been literally overwhelming, and I feel I haven't expressed proper appreciation to everyone.  So I wanted to give a big thanks from the bottom of my heart.

 

I'll be going back over this thread and responding to specific posts later on.

[shaggy]

Glad your back and safe josh. It was one hell of a cyclone you went after and we are all glad you guys made it back.

[ncforecaster89]

Both the JMA and JTWC had Haiyan well into Cat-5 intensity after the Leyte landfall just S of us. When those two agencies agree, I feel comfortable with their blended assessment.

This aside, Tony, I saw the other day that you compared the winds we experienced in Tacloban to your winds in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, during Katrina. This comparison seems odd to me, since Katrina was a big, loose, rapidly decaying Cat 1 with winds of 80 kt as it passed near Hattiesburg (at 18Z), while Haiyan was an extremely intense typhoon as it passed near us, with both agency estimates putting the intensity well into Cat 5. Whether winds in the city were Cat 5 or high-end Cat 4, the fact remains that the city experienced extremely severe conditions. There really is no meaningful comparison here.

Hey Josh. The post I made using my experience in Katrina was only mentioned to reference that you no doubt encountered stronger wind gusts in Tacloban, from Haiyan, than those I experienced during Katrina, in southern Mississippi.

Based solely on the video itself, and my own personal experience with wind gusts around 130 mph, I was simply estimating the peak gusts somewhere between 140-150 mph. That's the only way, and time, I've mentioned a comparison between the two storms.

Just for the record, I intercepted Katrina S of Hattiesburg (not in the city itself), at a location between there and Poplarville-in southern Mississippi. The peak gusts I experienced in it were officially estimated to be around 130 mph, based on actual in situ observations, and it wasn't only an 80 kt. Category one hurricane when I encountered the peak winds. In addition, Katrina exhibited a higher wind gust to MSW ratio than the typical hurricane. This is the main reason that even Laurel, Mississippi, a full 100 miles inland, recorded wind gusts of 110 mph, before their anemometer was destroyed by the intense wind gusts.

Please understand that I'm not trying to marginalize your own experience, and there's a rather significant difference between a wind gust of 130 mph and those in the 140-150 mph range. As I've already stated, the winds you guys recorded rank right up there with some of the strongest I've seen recorded on film-just below those recorded by Mike Thesis in Charley, and possibly those recorded in Puerto Rico during Hugo. So, I've never even remotely implied that you didn't experience "extremely severe conditions" in the eyewall of Haiyan. There's no doubt about the fact that you did!

In my previous post, I was simply giving an objective opinion of Haiyan's landfalling intensity, based on all the available data obtained to date. In retrospect, I should've clarified that I believe Haiyan may have still retained category five intensity, at its second landfall, just S of Palo.

[ak22]

Josh, so glad you and the others are safe and back home.  Hope Mark's leg will be okay.  I, for one, was refreshing this page, FB and Twitter until I saw messages that you guys were okay!

 

Question - were the locals taking this seriously before it hit?  Did they realize the intensity?  I know a lot evacuated, but I remember seeing a picture from someone's Twitter feed as the storm got closer (maybe Jim Edds) showing hotel restaurant staff struggling to close a door against the wind.  What struck me most was that the tables next to them were set for breakfast the next morning as if nothing out of the ordinary was approaching.  I went through the Irene bust in NJ, which led a lot of people to downplay Sandy until it was almost on top of us.  Was it a similar attitude there?  That image has stayed with me - a monster Cat 5 is bearing down on the city, but the tables are all set with coffee cups and silverware. 

 

Thanks!

[lantanatx]

Glad your safe Josh and you have done a great job with the interviews.  

[apm]

The pressure gradient once you are in the eye is virtually flat. So it doesn't matter how wide the eye was, but rather what the gradient was across the eye wall. Given the satellite presentation (and it too was intensifying up until land fall) I'm sure the gradient in the eye wall was at least as steep as Andrew's.

Although I understand the parallel you are trying to make between the two storms, there are some very important distinctions that need to be considered, when doing so.

First, the eye of Andrew was smaller and more compact than Haiyan's, when the latter made landfall S of Tacloban City.

Secondly, the distance between the 922 mb pressure measured in Andrew and the northern-most portion of the eyewall was only 11 nm. This is quite significant because the 982 mb pressure you are referencing was recorded at the NHC, which was 15 nm from the centroid of the eye, and a full 4 nm OUTSIDE the eyewall.

In addition, hurricane Andrew was rapidly intensifying as it was coming ashore just E of Homestead. In contrast, both the radar and satellite presentations of Haiyan, while still impressive, had deteriorated somewhat between the initial landfall near Guiuan, and it's subsequent landfall just S of Palo. This was not surprising since the northern eyewall, that would ultimately move into Tacloban, had been encountering friction (as it scraped along the southern coast of Samar) during the entire two hours that elapsed between the two respective landfalls.

With the aforementioned in mind, there's very little doubt that Haiyan didn't have as steep a pressure gradient, at closest approach to Tacloban, as the one observed in hurricane Andrew-when it struck the SE coast of Fl. Based on all the available data collected to date, it seems far more plausible that Typhoon Haiyan moved ashore into the Lyete peninsula with a lowest barometric pressure in the general vicinity of 930 mb, and likely at category four intensity. I suspect that the satellite estimates over-exaggerated the peak intensity of Haiyan, when it made its initial landfall near Guiuan. That being said, it is highly probable that it was still a very intense category five TC (with a lowest minimum central pressure in the 910 mb range) when it made landfall in eastern Samar.

[aslkahuna]

One thing of note: No pressure/wind relationship developed for TCs at sea support a 170 kt (or 150kt 10 minute) with an 895 mb pressure-especially JTWC's which was developed in the 1970's using recon data and which held up well even recently when recon was used in WPAC during a global field study. An 895 mb pressure using JTWC supported a 140kt Cat 5 or 120 kt 10 minute average storm so either Haiyan at peak was NOT 170kt or the pressure was not 895 but rather down around 870mb or lower. It was undoubtedly Cat 5 at landfall a not so common occurrence even in the Philippines and people on Leyte and Samar have a familiarity breeds contempt attitude towards typhoon since so many occur there-they also have little experience with high storm surges and if we can't get people to evacuate here where we have such experience it's not unreasonable that many didn't there however misguided that course of action might be.

Steve

[Amped]

Jeff Master did a nice writeup on the central pressure. He compares it to several historic Atlantic storms.

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2580

[ncforecaster89]

The pressure gradient once you are in the eye is virtually flat. So it doesn't matter how wide the eye was, but rather what the gradient was across the eye wall. Given the satellite presentation (and it too was intensifying up until land fall) I'm sure the gradient in the eye wall was at least as steep as Andrew's.

You are correct about there being very little pressure differential found within the eye itself, and naturally, I was already totally aware of that. I was just simply responding to the post I "quoted", establishing the fact that the 982 mb pressure they were referencing wasn't observed in the eyewall of Andrew.

That being said, I still believe it's far more likely that the pressure gradient in Hayian, was not as steep as the one in Andrew, for the reasons I noted in the previous post. Unfortunately, it appears that we will both be left to forever speculate, and may never truly know what the actual pressure gradient was in the eyewall of Hayian.

keep in mind, the previous post I made was focused on the likely intensity of Hayian at its second landfall, just S of Palo. As I noted in that particular post, it most definitely had weakened noticeably between the first two landfalls.

[aslkahuna]

A recon measurement of the pressure in STY Megi off the east coast of Luzon in 2010 when JTWC rated it at 155kt was in the 882-885mb range close to JTs wind pressure relationship. Thus if Haiyan was really 170kt then it could not have been at 895mb.

Steve

[HurricaneJosh]

keep in mind, the previous post I made was focused on the likely intensity of Hayian at its second landfall, just S of Palo. As I noted in that particular post, it most definitely had weakened noticeably between the first two landfalls.

 

OK, so it went from nuclear Cat 5 at Guiuan to normal Cat 5 in Leyte?  

[ncforecaster89]

OK, so it went from nuclear Cat 5 at Guiuan to normal Cat 5 in Leyte?

Honestly, and disappointingly, it appears we may never know what the lowest central pressure was in Haiyan, at either landfall.

That being said, one can make a reasonable argument that Haiyan had weakened to just below category five intensity when it barreled ashore just S of Palo, just as much as one can do the same suggesting it still retained category five intensity, at its second landfall in Leyte.

It's very unfortunate that we are left to speculate on the actual intensity of Haiyan, based solely on satellite estimates-which have been shown to significantly overestimate the intensity of various TCs in the past. Without actual in situ recon data at the time of either landfall, or a reliable pressure observation taken inside the eye, it lends itself to more of a subjective analysis, rather than a truly objective one.

Case in point, if you had measured a lowest pressure of 930 mb, instead of 960 mb, there wouldn't be this necessity to suggest that there HAD to have been such a "spectacular" pressure gradient, within the eyewall of Haiyan, at its closest approach to your intercept location.

That aside, we are currently left with the far more subjective analysis provided by the various Meteorological Agencies that do operational forecasting for this particular area. Although JTWC provided an initial landfalling intensity estimate of 170 kt. (195 mph), the other two agencies forecasting in the area provided intensity estimates dramatically lower than the JTWC.

To be specific, both JMA and Pagasa each estimated the 10 minute MSW to be 125 kt (147 mph). Using the standard conversion ratio, this estimate equates to a one minute MSW of 145 kt. (165 mph). If the estimates provided by the latter two agencies are indeed correct, it would suggest that Haiyan wasn't the "nuclear" category five Typhoon it is currently estimated to be by the JTWC. Given that Haiyan had weakened noticeably between it's first landfall near Guiuan, and it's subsequent landfall just S of Palo, one could even make a reasonable argument that it might've been a strong category four TC at landfall in Leyte. This would no doubt better correlate with the actual pressure reading you recorded in Tacloban, alleviating the necessity to promote the prospect of a supposed "crazy" pressure gradient, as some are trying to suggest.

At this point in time, and possibly forever, we are simply left to speculate about the actual intensity of Haiyan at each of the aforementioned landfalls. With that in mind, I stand by my original assessment of the probable landfalling intensity (contained in the previous post I made on this subject), based on all the collective data available to date. If further data becomes available, we might better be able to provide more of a truly objective analysis, rather than these far more subjective ones, that lend itself to so much conjecture.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying that it didn't necessarily retain borderline category five intensity at its second landfall just S of Palo, but rather, it's just as possible that it had indeed weakened to just below that threshold. In my own humble opinion, it currently appears to be an exceedingly close call either way.

[HurricaneJosh]

Honestly, and disappointingly, it appears we may never know what the lowest central pressure was in Haiyan, at either landfall.

That being said, one can make a reasonable argument that Haiyan had weakened to just below category five intensity when it barreled ashore just S of Palo, just as much as one can do the same suggesting it still retained category five intensity, at its second landfall in Leyte.

It's very unfortunate that we are left to speculate on the actual intensity of Haiyan, based solely on satellite estimates-which have been shown to significantly overestimate the intensity of various TCs in the past. Without actual in situ recon data at the time of either landfall, or a reliable pressure observation taken inside the eye, it lends itself to more of a subjective analysis, rather than a truly objective one.

Case in point, if you had measured a lowest pressure of 930 mb, instead of 960 mb, there wouldn't be this necessity to suggest that there HAD to have been such a "spectacular" pressure gradient, within the eyewall of Haiyan, at its closest approach to your intercept location.

That aside, we are currently left with the far more subjective analysis provided by the various Meteorological Agencies that do operational forecasting for this particular area. Although JTWC provided an initial landfalling intensity estimate of 170 kt. (195 mph), the other two agencies forecasting in the area provided intensity estimates dramatically lower than the JTWC.

To be specific, both JMA and Pagasa each estimated the 10 minute MSW to be 125 kt (147 mph). Using the standard conversion ratio, this estimate equates to a one minute MSW of 145 kt. (165 mph). If the estimates provided by the latter two agencies are indeed correct, it would suggest that Haiyan wasn't the "nuclear" category five Typhoon it is currently estimated to be by the JTWC. Given that Haiyan had weakened noticeably between it's first landfall near Guiuan, and it's subsequent landfall just S of Palo, one could even make a reasonable argument that it might've been a strong category four TC at landfall in Leyte. This would no doubt better correlate with the actual pressure reading you recorded in Tacloban, alleviating the necessity to promote the prospect of a supposed "crazy" pressure gradient, as some are trying to suggest.

At this point in time, and possibly forever, we are simply left to speculate about the actual intensity of Haiyan at each of the aforementioned landfalls. With that in mind, I stand by my original assessment of the probable landfalling intensity (contained in the previous post I made on this subject), based on all the collective data available to date. If further data becomes available, we might better be able to provide more of a truly objective analysis, rather than these far more subjective ones, that lend itself to so much conjecture.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying that it didn't necessarily retain borderline category five intensity at its second landfall just S of Palo, but rather, it's just as possible that it had indeed weakened to just below that threshold. In my own humble opinion, it currently appears to be an exceedingly close call either way.

 

I'll go with the official agency estimates from the JMA and JTWC, both of which have it as a solid Cat 5 well after landfall.

 

By the way, Tony: JMA never indicates intensities higher than 125 kt on anything-- that is their operational max-- so for them, 125 kt is, indeed, nuclear. Super Typhoon Megii-- another top-end Cat 5-- was 125 kt as well. They just don't go higher.

 

Also, Haiyan's intensity is no greater a mystery than every other landfalling WPAC storm-- they're all estimated using the same tools, in lieu of recon and ground truth.

[ncforecaster89]

I'll go with the official agency estimates from the JMA and JTWC, both of which have it as a solid Cat 5 well after landfall.

By the way, Tony: JMA never indicates intensities higher than 125 kt on anything-- that is their operational max-- so for them, 125 kt is, indeed, nuclear. Super Typhoon Megii-- another top-end Cat 5-- was 125 kt as well. They just don't go higher.

Also, Haiyan's intensity is no greater a mystery than every other landfalling WPAC storm-- they're all estimated using the same tools, in lieu of recon and ground truth.

As far as the JMA is concerned, I wasn't aware of that policy regarding the ceiling they place on maximum intensity estimates. Unlike the NHC's operational areas of forecasting responsibility, I admittedly aren't nearly as familiar with the workings of the JMA or the JTWC. That said, I am acutely aware of the significant discrepancies that tend to exist between satellite estimates and those verified by actual recon observation. That's the frustrating part of accurately ascertaining the peak intensity of WPAC TCs.

Unless I'm mistaken, the PAGASA meteorological agency is considered an official agency, as well, and as such, their interpretation of the satellite data deserves some merit, as well.

Regardless, there's no doubt, at least in my mind, that Haiyan displayed one of the best satellite signatures I've ever seen. The obvious question though is how that highly impressive satellite signature actually translated to the max intensity at the surface of this phenomenal Typhoon. That part of the equation is still open to genuine debate, and I'm afraid we may never truly known the answer. Based on all the available data and information available to date, I stand by my own personal assessment of what I suspect to be the likely landfalling intensity of Haiyan, for its first two respective landfalls. To reiterate, this is just simply my own personal opinion based solely on the current available evidence-which is left to more subjectivity than I'd like.

Of course, the debate about just how intense Haiyan was, at either respective landfall, pales in comparison to the incredible suffering it has left in its wake!